Well, the turbine can be run on diesel fuel, while the M1A2SEP3 adds an APU that can also use diesel fuel.
Canada's tanks
- Thread starter jfposada
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 21,841
- Points
- 1,260
The Abrams can be fitted with a diesel engine, Congress just hasn’t let the Army get any at this point. The turbine was forced on the Army.
The APU on the SepV3 means it can save a ton of fuel while doing turret watch etc instead of needing the turbine feasting on fuel for those sort of tasks.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,265
- Points
- 1,110
Yep - the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) allows the tank's systems to be powered without having to run the engine. Still uses fuel, but not to the same magnitude as the turbine.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,265
- Points
- 1,110
As an aside, the Government Accountability Office report on Army combat systems after the 1991 Gulf War noted that the M1 was a great tank but had limited range (in terms of movement, not gunnery) due to high fuel consumption. They noted that the tanks were idling close to 70% of the time to operate combat systems, and one recommendation that came out of the war was for APUs to be fitted.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,846
- Points
- 1,160
APU's have been in tanks since WWII, odd they neglected it in the M1 for so long. The primary purpose of a APU is to ensure the BV is up and running, with a side benefit that the radio's and FCS are also functioning.
- Reaction score
- 21,841
- Points
- 1,260
There have been a number of proposed changes from both the Army and GD on the Abrams and the engine, but Lawmakers down here have enforced the Turbine - and had scuttled some earlier APU adoption attempts.
That said, when the Army wanted to close the Abrams line, the House and Senate refused and put it on a minimum build rate.
What in the hell are legislators doing meddling with things like whether a tank had an APU? I know American Congress critters get mixed up in all kinds of wacky shit way outside their legislative arcs, but this?
- Reaction score
- 6,043
- Points
- 1,160
We even had an auxiliary generator on Centurion. A 4 cylinder Austin motor. I used to get parts for my Austin Mini from the Parts Crib.
- Reaction score
- 21,841
- Points
- 1,260
I think a lot of them have a "Resists Change" PER Box
Frankly I don't get it, as ECP's shouldn't be an issue for the Political spectrum at all -- but I suspect that someone was protecting something in their state or district...
- Reaction score
- 27,337
- Points
- 1,090
Or obstructing another state or district.
The F35 is a great example of cost inflation due to sourcing parts from everywhere to ensure national, bipartisan support for the program, regardless of problems.
The F35 is a great example of cost inflation due to sourcing parts from everywhere to ensure national, bipartisan support for the program, regardless of problems.
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 917
- Points
- 1,160
I think the term is "pork-barreling."I think a lot of them have a "Resists Change" PER Box
Frankly I don't get it, as ECP's shouldn't be an issue for the Political spectrum at all -- but I suspect that someone was protecting something in their state or district...
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,543
- Points
- 1,160
I think a lot of them have a "Resists Change" PER Box
Frankly I don't get it, as ECP's shouldn't be an issue for the Political spectrum at all -- but I suspect that someone was protecting something in their state or district...
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,043
- Points
- 1,160
yup....
Tank graveyard exemplifies pork-barrel spending
Ever heard of pork-barrel spending? It's not about pigs. It's a term used to describe funds from Congress that are pumped into local projects, mainly to bring money back to a lawmaker's home district.In fiscal year 2016, 123 earmarks — that's another word for pork spending — cost taxpayers $5.1 billion. That's especially high when you look at the past few years. The figure has about doubled just since 2014. And all of this year's pork spending was in one big bill — HR 2029, according to the Pig Book, an annual report from Citizens Against Government Waste.
One of fiscal year 2016's earmarks is a classic example of pork-barrel spending. It's $40 million to continue upgrading the M1 Abrams tank, and this has been an earmark for years. But the thing is, the Department of Defense doesn't want it.
"It would cost us $2.8 billion just to keep that open, and our tank fleet is in good shape," said former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno.
The Army has told Congress it's good on these tanks. It's so good, it has 2,000 of them parked in the desert in California.
Since fiscal year 1994, there have been 39 earmarks just for this tank program, which together has cost $948.6 million, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.
So why spend millions on military equipment the military doesn't need? To keep money coming into lawmakers' home districts where parts for those tanks are built, which means jobs and economic stimulation in their districts — even if it doesn't make economic sense nationwide.
Which is pretty much a perfect, textbook example of pork-barrel spending
Tank graveyard exemplifies pork-barrel spending
A tank program the military said it doesn't need is a result of pork-barrel spending meant to bring money to a lawmaker's home district.
www.kjrh.com
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,073
- Points
- 810
It’s also maintaining a strategic industrial base for the United States as a country.
It can be framed as a bigger picture than the US Army having enough M1 Abrams at the moment. Maintaining a production line and supply chain and skilled work force for strategic objectives is not cheap and is not necessarily about being penny wise.
It can be framed as a bigger picture than the US Army having enough M1 Abrams at the moment. Maintaining a production line and supply chain and skilled work force for strategic objectives is not cheap and is not necessarily about being penny wise.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,186
- Points
- 990
@KevinB
In the Ukraine thread you posted a video of an M2A2 Bradley surviving a frontal hit from a 125mm tank gun.
Much is made of the M10 Booker not being a tank, not being heavy enough to be used as a tank etc.
Now the username says it all, but to me it seems like between the weight per surface area, armour angle, material advances etc, that an M10 should be significantly better protected/more survivable than an M2A2.
By no means a vehicle that can slug it out with modern western MBT's, but throw in a state of the art FCS and it seems like it should be at least serviceable as a "tank" capable of day/night operations against Russian equipment, especially the B grade stuff (T-72's, etc)
With the RCAC looking to single stream, a tank that shares the same crewing requirements and could be employed similarly to the Leo's while providing strategic mobility benefits and not requiring the same heavyweight infrastructure seems like a viable option for the non-Leo portion of th RCAC.
In the Ukraine thread you posted a video of an M2A2 Bradley surviving a frontal hit from a 125mm tank gun.
Much is made of the M10 Booker not being a tank, not being heavy enough to be used as a tank etc.
Now the username says it all, but to me it seems like between the weight per surface area, armour angle, material advances etc, that an M10 should be significantly better protected/more survivable than an M2A2.
By no means a vehicle that can slug it out with modern western MBT's, but throw in a state of the art FCS and it seems like it should be at least serviceable as a "tank" capable of day/night operations against Russian equipment, especially the B grade stuff (T-72's, etc)
With the RCAC looking to single stream, a tank that shares the same crewing requirements and could be employed similarly to the Leo's while providing strategic mobility benefits and not requiring the same heavyweight infrastructure seems like a viable option for the non-Leo portion of th RCAC.
- Reaction score
- 21,841
- Points
- 1,260
Those Bradley's have the BRA on them (Bradley explosive Reactive Armor) - so that is the reason for the survivability.
In the past we (NATO) had generally avoided ERA solutions due to damage to dismounts - but the smaller panels BRA uses on the turret and front glacis plates generally dont cause significant issues where friendly infantry would be.
ERA works for single charge HEAT - they don't work so well for multi staged warheads, or kinetic penetrators.
I suspect Russia has burned through most of their modern 125mm APDS shells, and a lot of their dual warhead HEAT rockets, shells. and missiles, but not all, and they and others will adapt.
Wheeled and tracked vehicles fight very differently -- if Canada was too look at a M10 FSV (Fire Support Vehicle: for the "not a light tank" nomenclature) I would think that it would be supporting a T-IFV not a LAV, but I would also suggest that then the Abrams and Bradley (or OMFV if it ever comes to light) would be a better option for Canada and go all in on US mech kit.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,043
- Points
- 1,160
Wait, haven't we got any Scorpions left in the inventory we can haul out and claim are as good as, or better than, the M10?
Could we not fit a LAV with LRA (Lav Reactive Armor) provide similar if not the same level of protection as the Bradley? Base armor is similar and or the same configuration. Weights of the vehicles are close in full configs.
Could we not fit a ATGM to the Lav the same or similar as the Bradley?
The Tracked version of the Lav Hull has some promise, but not enough interest. But the Lav protection has proven to be pretty effective agaisnt mines, rpgs etc.
That video of the Bradley taking that tank round was pretty neat to see. Hopefully none of the troops were hurt.
Could we not fit a ATGM to the Lav the same or similar as the Bradley?
The Tracked version of the Lav Hull has some promise, but not enough interest. But the Lav protection has proven to be pretty effective agaisnt mines, rpgs etc.
That video of the Bradley taking that tank round was pretty neat to see. Hopefully none of the troops were hurt.
Similar threads
